You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

The purpose of this study was to propose and evaluate a high to low (Hi-Lo) amputation ratio as a potential additional quality measure giving further insight into high-risk foot surveillance beyond foot screening examinations. As part of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care project, a secondary analysis was performed on Medicare administrative data. Amputation rates were adjusted for age, gender, and race. This included 37,808 minor (foot-level) amputations and 44,599 major amputations from 1996 to 1997. We also calculated the longitudinal national trends in the Hi-Lo ratio with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1992 to 2002. The adjusted mean Hi-Lo ratio was 1.35 (standard deviation, 0.42). The lowest ratio was 0.56, and the highest ratio was 3.43. The correlation coefficient for the Hi-Lo ratio with major amputation rate was 0.48 (P < .0001; R(2) = 0.23). Similar correlations were found for the highest and lowest percentiles for major and minor rates. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data of the Hi-Lo ratio using the crude and age-adjusted rates suggest stable trends in the ratio over a decade. The Hi-Lo measure demonstrates face validity, yet only a small proportion of the variance is described by local propensity to perform major amputation or by major amputation rates alone. The United States has relied on a foot screening measure alone, perhaps explaining why major amputation rates have not substantively declined. If we are to reduce the amputation burden, we should begin with a straightforward measure that can be implemented at most any center.